Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[45guy]

Just for the sake of argument your own religion says theres more than one way for a woman to conceive.  Just sayin

Not sure your point here, if your talking about Mary the mother of Jesus. Ok, but for Adam and Eve and the use of the word know, I stand by my statement.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just for the sake of argument your own religion says theres more than one way for a woman to conceive.  Just sayin  

No, that isn't a "just sayin". That one comment is factually incorrect, and is totally uncalled for. Since you

used the "your own religion", I'll assume it was only meant as a slap at someone else's religious belief. I

don't understand why it has to go to these depths.

[c.a.willard]

it was a response to someone saying that it is impossible for a woman to conceive without having sex.  Either hes right and his religion is wrong or vice versa it cant really be both ways not meant as a slap in his face or to insult his religion.  But to me you cant say something is impossible then turn around and say that the impossible happened it just doesn't work.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Then quit reading the Bible, like so many others have, and quit trying to act like that is some kind of argument,

when it certainly isn't. I, and others aren't dumping on whatever your beliefs are, so please be considerate.

 

I never took any argument I had about gays in Scouting to the level of crapping on anyone's religious teachings.

It would be nice if everyone would consider doing the same.

 

If you don't believe in God, or some other higher order, may God bless you.

[c.a.willard]

what if I told you my religion was openly accepting of homosexuals to include gay marriage.  if calling my religious viewpoints morally repugnant isn't crapping on my beliefs I don't know what is.

[45guy]

what if I told you my religion was openly accepting of homosexuals to include gay marriage.  if calling my religious viewpoints morally repugnant isn't crapping on my beliefs I don't know what is.

I do not recall calling your religious viewpoints morally repugnant. I may disagree, but you have the right to believe what you want. I tend to stay away from statements that start with "i think" or "i believe". I do try to back up my beliefs with scripture. If the scripture has offended you there is not much i can do about that. I have learned to interpret scripture with other scripture and have found the bible to be consistent on sexual morality issues including homosexuality. I only have 30 years of studying the word so I still have a lot to learn. If you have bible verses that back up your position I would be interested in hearing them.

I have I enjoyed the debate so far especially that it has stayed by and large non personal.

[Oh Shoot]

....If you have bible verses that back up your position I would be interested in hearing them.

 

Thus, you'd constrain folks professing other religions to use the Christian Bible as the only acceptable construct for debate, even though they don't believe in the book to begin with?

 

- OS

[45guy]

it was a response to someone saying that it is impossible for a woman to conceive without having sex.  Either hes right and his religion is wrong or vice versa it cant really be both ways not meant as a slap in his face or to insult his religion.  But to me you cant say something is impossible then turn around and say that the impossible happened it just doesn't work.

Would you feel better if I had said " other than Mary the mother of Jesus" I only know of one way that can happen? If so my bad for leaving that out.

It still does not change the fact that the same word "know" was used in those two places in the bible that was part of the discussion. That was the point of the statement. Man we can chase some rabbits can't we.

[45guy]

Thus, you'd constrain folks professing other religions to use the Christian Bible as the only acceptable construct for debate, even though they don't believe in the book to begin with?
 
- OS

The discussion would probably have to start with why the bible is my point of reference, And what would there's would be and why.

[Oh Shoot]

Would you feel better if I had said " other than Mary the mother of Jesus" I only know of one way that can happen? If so my bad for leaving that out.

 

"Approximately 4,000 to 5,000 births per year are due to artificial insemination with donor sperm, according to Xytex, a large U.S. sperm bank."

http://www.livestrong.com/artificial-insemination/#ixzz2V1ZxQQIR

 

The ole in-out in-out not required. :)

 

- OS

Edited June 2, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[c.a.willard]

45  I'm still trying to figure out how I crapped on your religion.  You said that there is only one way for a woman to conceive.  If you believe the bible as the factual word of god you have to acknowledge that this is not true.   was I being more smart@$$ than I probably needed to be maybe and if I offended you I sincerely apologize. But it was not meant to insult you or Christianity.   At the end of the day I guess it doesn't matter what my intent was by the comment only the effect the words had.

 

 

When I as said calling my beliefs morally repugnant I was not speaking to you specifically but there have been many in this thread that have eluded to it.

 

 

6.8 AR I still read the bible regularly.  Specifically my grandmothers bible that my father sent her from Vietnam.  It's not as old as some family bibles but it is the only thing of hers I own.  I doubt I will ever stop reading it because it allows me to still feel connected with her.  I don't personally view the bible as the infallible word of god.  Do I believe there is a higher power absolutely,  but the problem with the bible is the number of times that the passages have been interpreted by man not just translated but interpreted into what they thought the passages meant.  Even for someone who truly believes that god is infallible I would think that it would be acknowledged that man is not. 

 

 

back more to the point at hand which is the BSA.  They require a spiritual belief not necessarily a specific religion.  I do not see a conflict because of that.  Where I do see a conflict is when you have to force children to lie about who they are in order to be a part of the BSA and that is exactly what was happening under the old rules.

 

Edited to add:  I also fully support and religious institution that chooses to end their troop sponsorship because of this decision.  That is their absolute right to only support organizations with rules that they believe in.  I hope for the kids involved in those troops that other places will pick up those sponsorships.  I don't think any of us wants this to negatively impact scouting and the good things it does for developing youth.

Edited June 2, 2013 by c.a.willard

[45guy]

I never said you offended me in any way. I am very hard to offend. I think 6.8 may have saw it that way but I didn't. Hopefully my last post on this explained my train of thought in that part of the discussion. C.A., Absolutely no offense taken. Iron sharpens iron.

[45guy]

"Approximately 4,000 to 5,000 births per year are due to artificial insemination with donor sperm, according to Xytex, a large U.S. sperm bank."
http://www.livestrong.com/artificial-insemination/#ixzz2V1ZxQQIR
 
The ole in-out in-out not required. :)
 
- OS

At the time of Adam and Eve (which was what we were talking about)those options were not available. Again other than Mary the mother of Jesus (thats for you c.a.) i know of no other way Adam and Eve could have gotten pregnant other than the "old in and out". OS you sure have a way with words.

[45guy]

At the time of Adam and Eve (which was what we were talking about)those options were not available. Again other than Mary the mother of Jesus (thats for you c.a.) i know of no other way Adam and Eve could have gotten pregnant other than the "old in and out". OS you sure have a way with words.

Ok,ok before you bible scholars get started, I guess one could say that Mary was artificially inseminated, but not by a medical procedure so I think I am still correct on that and Abraham used a surrogate mother for his first born but that still took him knowing her
(OS would say the old in and out). I'm going to bed, good night.

[Oh Shoot]

At the time of Adam and Eve (which was what we were talking about)those options were not available

 

I'll only concede "Adam and Eve" in the relatively universal allegorical context among cultures but I'll acknowledge the general date of the written saga as around 2500-3000 years ago when human artificial insemination wasn't known -- but nonetheless the wider point is, to stay relevant, moral and legal judgements must address the contemporary society, whether it's Christianity or Constitutionalism.

 

The Christian Church certainly helped keep society in the Dark Ages much longer than it would have by its consistent attempts to squash most all breakthrough discoveries initially as heresy. Of course that has mostly abated, but took the lion's share of its history to do so.

 

Certainly, human artificial insemination and/or implantation would have been just as heretical in 500, 1200, or 1800 as was any of the early astronomers' discoveries. But I know of no mainstream Christian sect that sees it as "against God's will" these days, although I suppose the fact that lesbians bear children this way is personally disturbing to many (but haven't heard that the issue has been "ruled" upon by any particular religious body). The present conflict seems mostly limited to issues of stem cell growth and cloning.

 

But it does serve as an example of how things do change. For better or worse I'll not even debate as that's all a different discussion.

 

 

..i know of no other way Adam and Eve could have gotten pregnant other than the "old in and out". OS you sure have a way with words.

 
Can't take credit -- Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange.
 
- OS

Edited June 2, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just think there is some kind of disconnect in the way people tend to crap on Christianity, while jumping into

the realm of moral relativism to justify someone else's emotional or sexual proclivities.

 

I just thought the comment was rude, like it tends to get during some discussions. It appears to me that people

with atheistic ideas, whether or not that is their chosen belief system, will sometimes tend to demean another who

may have a different belief. If it so appropriate to use this way, then have at it. Just another example of the way

civilization is headed.

 

 

"Approximately 4,000 to 5,000 births per year are due to artificial insemination with donor sperm, according to Xytex, a large U.S. sperm bank."

http://www.livestrong.com/artificial-insemination/#ixzz2V1ZxQQIR

 

The ole in-out in-out not required. :)

 

- OS

 

It's still the ole "in and out" just without the body parts. If, for example this can be done with a gay guy, I think you

could use your example.

 

I'll only concede "Adam and Eve" in the relatively universal allegorical context among cultures but I'll acknowledge the general date of the written saga as around 2500-3000 years ago when human artificial insemination wasn't known -- but nonetheless the wider point is, to stay relevant, moral and legal judgements must address the contemporary society, whether it's Christianity or Constitutionalism.

 

The Christian Church certainly helped keep society in the Dark Ages much longer than it would have by its consistent attempts to squash most all breakthrough discoveries initially as heresy. Of course that has mostly abated, but took the lion's share of its history to do so.

 

Certainly, human artificial insemination and/or implantation would have been just as heretical in 500, 1200, or 1800 as was any of the early astronomers' discoveries. But I know of no mainstream Christian sect that sees it as "against God's will" these days, although I suppose the fact that lesbians bear children this way is personally disturbing to many (but haven't heard that the issue has been "ruled" upon by any particular religious body). The present conflict seems mostly limited to issues of stem cell growth and cloning.

 

But it does serve as an example of how things do change. For better or worse I'll not even debate as that's all a different discussion.

 

 

 
Can't take credit -- Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange.
 
- OS

Nor do I, but the idea that may be disturbing is that two mothers may be disturbing to a heterosexual couple, seeing that there may need to be a mother and father, when that has been the norm for I'm guessing the beginning of time.

 

You can tinker with nature and you can occasionally succeed, but there will always be pitfalls, like the social interaction and addition or lack of one type of input making the offspring behaviorally troublesome, just like or worse than it already is. It certainly hasn't been proven to be better, just different.

 

At least some of us still believe that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

You always seem to note the pitfalls of Christianity, But I rarely see the credit given. Is there none?

 

Now, based on our many conversations, I still believe you think of the Constitution as a dead document, which shouldn't be tampered with, except in very rare circumstances. Why should Christianity be different? Does it have to change with the times, also? Isn't that the downfall in most civilizations, when they tend to water down everything to suit their perceived needs, only to fall faster?

Edited June 2, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

45  I'm still trying to figure out how I crapped on your religion.  You said that there is only one way for a woman to conceive.  If you believe the bible as the factual word of god you have to acknowledge that this is not true.   was I being more smart@$$ than I probably needed to be maybe and if I offended you I sincerely apologize. But it was not meant to insult you or Christianity.   At the end of the day I guess it doesn't matter what my intent was by the comment only the effect the words had.

 

 

When I as said calling my beliefs morally repugnant I was not speaking to you specifically but there have been many in this thread that have eluded to it.

 

 

6.8 AR I still read the bible regularly.  Specifically my grandmothers bible that my father sent her from Vietnam.  It's not as old as some family bibles but it is the only thing of hers I own.  I doubt I will ever stop reading it because it allows me to still feel connected with her.  I don't personally view the bible as the infallible word of god.  Do I believe there is a higher power absolutely,  but the problem with the bible is the number of times that the passages have been interpreted by man not just translated but interpreted into what they thought the passages meant.  Even for someone who truly believes that god is infallible I would think that it would be acknowledged that man is not. 

 

 

back more to the point at hand which is the BSA.  They require a spiritual belief not necessarily a specific religion.  I do not see a conflict because of that.  Where I do see a conflict is when you have to force children to lie about who they are in order to be a part of the BSA and that is exactly what was happening under the old rules.

 

Edited to add:  I also fully support and religious institution that chooses to end their troop sponsorship because of this decision.  That is their absolute right to only support organizations with rules that they believe in.  I hope for the kids involved in those troops that other places will pick up those sponsorships.  I don't think any of us wants this to negatively impact scouting and the good things it does for developing youth.

What you call forcing, I call teaching. I didn't force either of my children to use the Bible as a place to find the infallibility of God. In fact, I made them aware of it and they made their own minds up. Children are not forced to lie about anything, but by their parents requirement to join something they may not wish to join. If they disagree, they usually don't remain in that or other organizations. Volition!

 

I didn't challenge whether or not you regularly read the Bible or anything along those lines, only the one comment, which I still think was rude, and now has brought on more religious argument, which probably shouldn't have been injected into this discussion.

 

Now, based on my lack of knowledge, I maintain one of the good things that came out of the Bible was the Ten

Commandments, which eventually led to just morals and just laws. I guess that will be argued that all that came from pagan institutions, as well, but I will stick to what I learned. Unless you view moral relativism as a correct way of life, you might conclude that the Ten Commandments is dead, only in the same usage as the Constitution, but I guess some will always disagree with that. Dead meaning timeless, nothing else, like a classic book.

 

Civilizations come and go, don't they?

Edited June 2, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[daddyo]

It's only "forcing" or "indoctrination" when it involves anything related to evangelical Christianity. But when gays or any other group do the same thing, then all they're doing is "exercising their rights". Go figure.

PC is killing our society.

[Guest nra37922]

Where does the BSA put a transgender scout?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In the same group as the rest.

[Oh Shoot]

.....You always seem to note the pitfalls of Christianity, But I rarely see the credit given. Is there none?

Now now, this is no place for a comparative religion discussion, or the nature of supernatural metaphysics in general. Thread likely wouldn't survive it. :)
 

Now, based on our many conversations, I still believe you think of the Constitution as a dead document, which shouldn't be tampered with, except in very rare circumstances. Why should Christianity be different? Does it have to change with the times, also? Isn't that the downfall in most civilizations, when they tend to water down everything to suit their perceived needs, only to fall faster?

 

Well, unlike the Christian Bible,  the Constitution can actually be "rewritten" by amendments and/or their repeal.

 

The Christian Bible, although also written by men, became what it is by the burgeoning Catholic Church's acceptance and rejection (and editing)  of a great number of texts over some 400 years until its purposes were served -- a sanctification by committee as it were. But unlike the Constitution, it is written in stone for some 1600 years now. And as long as Revelations 22:18-19 are adhered to, it'll stay that way. :)

 

However, both are similar though as interpretation has varied over time, whether by the Supreme Court in the case of the Constitution or religious synods of the various major sects in the case of the the Christian Bible.

 

I'll certainly give the Bible the edge as far as consistency of that over time, though, as Constitutional interpretation has been more stretched, shrunk, warped, and modified as the society has changed in just 200 years than has Christian doctrine in the last 1500.

 

On the other hand, there's only one USA and one ultimate court for final jurisdiction, while Christian dogma  since Martin Luther is much more fragmented, as the Vatican only determines about half of it, and the other half is quite diverse indeed, especially as relates to evolving social and scientific developments.

 

But the very fact that not all the major Christian sects officially agree on certain of these issues, and the fact that Catholic Church has evolved on several issues over a relatively short time (evolution, gay priests, whatever) is ongoing proof that these interpretations themselves are not as "written in stone" as are the texts themselves.

 

And like everything contemporary, the pace of change only increases. I'd posit that the Catholic Church will be only more and more influential in the coming years, and interpretation will flow from it more so than for many hundreds of years, especially noticeable here in the USA as Hispanics become closer to the majority of the population. Whether Catholicism continues to hold the same basic stand on various issues, I have no idea.

 

- OS

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That was a great response, Mac. And I agree, probably not the right venue for it, either. :D

 

The Bible has been re-written and modernized several times, to so call, keep up with the times, and I don't care for

a lot of that, either. But it wasn't my doing.

 

Basic tenets of the Constitution are similar to the Bible, since they come out of ideas that supersede modern

pop civilization, and both serve as an anchor in a sea of disruption of morals and justice. If we continue to let

our anchors loose that is where we let our civilization fall. Keeping up with the times is grossly inadequate

when most of the things that challenge our history and our future are whimsical, like this gay thing. Sorry,but

it is the way I think of it when kids decide they are gay because of their lack of understanding and their lack

of teaching of moral behavior by an education system and poor parenting that allows it to exist. It's also what

happens when the government raises our kids.

[Oh Shoot]

 Sorry,butit is the way I think of it when kids decide they are gay because of their lack of understanding and their lack

of teaching of moral behavior by an education system and poor parenting that allows it to exist. ..

 

Must admit I'll never get over what I consider the absurdity of that view, Mark -- until you can convince me that you and I "decided" to be straight.

 

I certainly had nothing consciously to do with it myself, as Mr. Happy informed me of my "decision" early on, without any reasoning on my part whatsoever.

 

- OS

Edited June 2, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

Must admit I'll never get over what I consider the absurdity of that view, Mark -- until you can convince me that you and I "decided" to be straight.

 

I certainly had nothing consciously to do with it myself, as Mr. Happy informed me of my "decision" early on, without any reasoning on my part whatsoever.

 

- OS

I am 100% certain that ALL homosexuals who live a homosexual lifestyle do so because they've chosen to do so (i.e., no one forces them to act on their sexual impulses/desires; what one does with ones sexual impulses and desires is always a choice).

 

I am 100% certain that SOME homosexuals are homosexuals only because they have decided to be (either because of the way they were raised or because of disappointments with heterosexual relationships or a variety of other reasons).

 

I am also 100% certain the most people who are homosexual are that way (sexually attracted to the same sex) because they are "wired" that way just as heterosexuals are "wired" to be attracted to the opposite sex.

 

I understand that many (not all) Christian faiths consider homosexual sex immoral but I've yet to read anywhere in scripture where simply being attracted to the same (or the opposite sex for that matter) is, by itself, a "sin".

 

Moreover, I don't believe ANY of this has any place in scouting.  Sexual activity has no place in scouting...what sex a boy is actually attracted to or thinks he is attracted to, I submit, is immaterial and irrelevant.

Edited June 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Must admit I'll never get over what I consider the absurdity of that view, Mark -- until you can convince me that you and I "decided" to be straight.

 

I certainly had nothing consciously to do with it myself, as Mr. Happy informed me of my "decision" early on, without any reasoning on my part whatsoever.

 

- OS

You're right, Mac, but not all, but there were a lot who all of a sudden just decided that they were gay, also. And there will never be any honest data to prove otherwise. when it appears that the number of gays is ever increasing, something else must be going on, like the counters and the posers. I never said there weren't gays, but I will always doubt the so-called numbers. And, as far as the role of the gay as some kind of group to bow down to, not me. They already have all they need to live and prosper. What percentage of the population is gay? 1%,10%,50%? Gay is a sexual lifestyle, not a gender, and there is too much not known about that particular aberrancy. I think there is a lot of misguided choice in the group.

 

There is a lot more politics in the gay thing than most will realize.

Edited June 3, 2013 by 6.8 AR